M/S Ganesha Enterprises vs. Asst. Commissioner Of

Held

The Court, taking note of the petitioner's submission that their grievance would be substantially redressed if a certified copy of the order was issued and they were permitted to file an appeal within the prescribed limitation period, disposed of the petition. The Court made it clear that after the certified copy is issued, the petitioner would be at liberty to take appropriate legal redressal steps within the time permitted by law, to be reckoned from the date of issuance of the fresh certified copy of the impugned order. The Court did not enter into a detailed hearing on the merits of the case, relying on the respondent's undertaking and the petitioner's conditional acceptance of the relief.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Ganesha Enterprises, filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court challenging the collection of tax, penalty, and cess by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement), Tumakuru. The petitioner contended that the order passed under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act was not uploaded to the portal and a certified copy was not provided, despite requests. The respondent's counsel, on instructions, admitted that due to a technical glitch, the order could not be uploaded. The respondent undertook to issue a certified copy of the order within a week.

Key Issues

1. Whether the collection of tax, penalty, and cess from the petitioner by the respondent without passing an order in Form GST MOV-09 under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST and KGST Acts, and the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017, is illegal and in violation of constitutional provisions and relevant circulars? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the collection was illegal as the order under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act was not uploaded to the portal and a certified copy was not issued, thus violating the provisions of the CGST Act, KGST Act, and Circular No.41/15/2018-GST dated 13-4-2018. They sought quashing of GST DRC-07 dated 15.07.2020 and refund of Rs.18,13,254/-. Respondent's contention: The respondent contended that the order was communicated to the petitioner's authorized representative. They further submitted, on instructions due to a technical glitch, that the order could not be uploaded and undertook to issue a certified copy within a week.